Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Dubuis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dubuis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references are Mr. Dubuis's own writings and other such primary sources. I looked for better ones and found only self-published or dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality. gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "dubious-seeming books on alchemy and esoteric spirituality" are appropriate references for this topic. If you can add them in that would do as independent references. I added in an independent external link, that is about a third of what is needed for GNG proof. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see more participation here. It would make a closure more straight-forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep echoing @Graeme Bartlett the chief complaint here seems to be the nature of the sources cited, not the lack of sources. Aside from the primary sources (not unusual for an author) the article cites a number of websites that treat Dubuis as important, for example[1],[2]. I just added this[3] from the Theosophical Society. These independent sources vouch for his importance among members of the community of alchemy researchers, substantiating WP:NAUTHOR#1, namely that he is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Oblivy (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.